|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Wrinkles' remain in Iraq resolution
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has decided to ask the Security Council to approve a resolution that demands the return of U.N. weapons inspectors under a strict deadline and threatens "consequences" if Iraq does not comply, but stops short of cataloguing Iraqi violations, a senior State Department official and other knowledgeable sources tell CNN. Secretary of State Colin Powell had been lobbying privately for this less confrontational approach in order to secure the support of most, if not all, 15 members of the U.N. Security Council. Some administration officials supported the idea of a U.N. resolution on Iraq specifically listing all alleged violations. Still unresolved is the precise language pertaining to the possible use of force against Iraq, officials say. A final draft of this resolution is not yet ready to be presented to the Security Council and most likely will not be voted on before chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix holds talks with Iraqi officials in Vienna next week, U.S. officials predict. "There are one or two wrinkles here yet," said the senior State Department official. The Pentagon is pushing for the resolution to threaten "all necessary and appropriate means" whereas the State Department prefers language with similar "depth and width" that wouldn't be "quite so strident," explained a senior administration official. But "it will be clear force is necessary and appropriate," this official said referring to what would happen if Iraq refuses weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons sites or does not comply in other ways. Until the matter was resolved Wednesday, State Department officials and diplomatic sources had told CNN that others in the Bush Cabinet want to "set up circumstances" -- beyond demanding Iraq disarm and allow weapons inspectors unfettered access -- which would ensure a regime change, like calling on Iraq's President Saddam Hussein to:
All of these demands were laid out in President Bush's September 12 address before the U.N. General Assembly. In that speech Bush catalogued Iraq's violations and made specific demands of Iraq. The point-person within the administration for the resolution is deputy national security adviser Steven Hadley who is "working feverishly" on new language, officials said. The Bush administration would like to have a resolution ready to introduce either Wednesday or Thursday of next week, according to diplomatic sources and administration officials. The earlier plan to present one yesterday was pushed back, say these officials, due to the unexpected need to focus on another resolution to diffuse the latest crisis in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. British diplomats are quick to dismiss any suggestion they are at odds with the United States over the contents of this resolution, citing "slight differences in debate within the U.S. inter-agency process" for any delay. "For our side we've done all we can do -- it's up to the U.S. now," this diplomat added. No decision has been made as yet as to whether the resolution will be introduced by the United States alone or jointly with the British. White House, Congress discuss authorizationMeanwhile, congressional aides and White House staff worked for hours Wednesday, trying to hammer out the final language of a resolution authorizing Bush to take possible military action against Iraq -- but, by evening, no agreement was reached. "We're not there," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri. However, one senior White House official said the sessions were productive. "There's been very good give and take and everybody is playing straight up with each other," said the official. One proposed rewrite comes from Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Hyde's draft would remove language written by the White House that says the president can use all means "he determines to be appropriate" against Iraq. Instead, the resolution would authorize "necessary and appropriate" means but would not leave it to the president to determine. "That's tighter, narrower language," said a Hyde aide. Hyde's draft addresses concerns raised about the very last line of the resolution language proposed by the White House, authorizing the president to use force to "restore international peace and security in the region." Some lawmakers thought that phrase might be interpreted as allowing Bush to take action against countries other than Iraq, such as Syria or Libya. The Hyde draft rewrites that section to authorize the president to use force in order to "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq." Bush would be further authorized to use force "in order to enforce the applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions ... to restore international peace and security in the region." Hyde's draft would also call on Bush to report back to Congress "at least once every 60 days" after enactment of the resolution to give Congress a "summary on the status of efforts." Several sources familiar with the talks said Hyde's draft had generated discussion but was certainly not the only proposed language on the table. "The Hyde ideas and resolution were helpful in getting some movement on some of the issues," said one source. "It's being treated seriously by the White House." But this source said Democrats still had a number of other proposed language changes they were pursuing.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
